What to do with child molesters?

[Tribesman]

Dave , if you could point me in the direction of an organisation with a very long history of child abuse and coverups of that abuse stretching all the way to the top of that organisation then I will bash that organisation .
Until then why should I not bash an institution that fits all of that criteria ?

[TosaInu]

Note!

This topic is getting pretty heated. I've been editing and PM'ing for a couple of hours just because of this topic, both private and general. This is the last warning: keep it civil.

Avoid the generalisation trap and the or this topic will be purged. A shame, as I think it also contains some reasonable discussion from several sides.

[Devastatin Dave]

Dave , if you could point me in the direction of an organisation with a very long history of child abuse and coverups of that abuse stretching all the way to the top of that organisation then I will bash that organisation .
Until then why should I not bash an institution that fits all of that criteria ?

But in the same context if I say something critical about Islam, or that many terrorist happen to be muslim, I get warnings tacked on while you and others can say that Cathlic Priests have sex with children and the Christianity is bad for society, and an eye is barely batted. But back to topic since obviously nothing will be done about the apparent anti-Christian tolerance in this forum, child molestors cannot be allowed in society, rather they be Catholic priests or Democratic voting NAMBLA liberals.

[econ21]

I agree with Yesdachi that people need to be careful to make distinctions between types of paedophiles. At one extreme, there are the violent child molesters who may kill or worse (type A). At the other extreme, there are people who are sexually aroused by children but who never act on it (type B). There is then a wide continuum of "child molestation" between.

To further complicate it, you have rather a large "grey area" arising from who is defined as a child or a child abuser. As a result some people may be classified as paedophiles when they are not - for example, in the UK, a sixteen year old sleeping with someone a year younger, ie below the age of consent (type C). Most people seem to be implicitly equating type B with type A and the law, being an ass, often comes down hard on type C, e.g. in the UK, they may well be registered on the sex offenders list.

I assume most of the discussion here is around Type A. I have no solution for these offenders. Lock em up and throw away the key is the best I can come up with.

With type C, I am pretty liberal and provided nobody gets hurt, everything is consensual, I would have them warned but not prosecuted.

With type B or those close on the scale to B than A, I think we perhaps should be less hysterical. In my childhood, I knew of a case of a stereotypical scout master. Every child knew he liked to give his boys a bath. We were too young to understand anything explicit about this but we knew it was odd and not quite right. But most scouts merely thought it funny, although it deterred me from ever joining their ranks. I believe some parents and people in authority knew also, but did nothing. I don't suppose he hurt anyone and was probably a kind harmless man. I believe people were too unconcerned in those days - I was gobsmacked thirty years later to know that adults knew about this scout master's nature. But the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the other direction and I do not believe he should have been stigmatised or locked up.

I suspect the real challenge for the police and others in authority is determining which kind of person they are dealing with. Ian Huntley, who killed two schoolgirls in the UK, came to police attention before the murders but they let it go because they thought he was a type C and not a type A. As a layman, my hunch is that a key distinguishing factor is whether violence is involved; obsessing about paedophilia may detract from that. It's not love that kills. For cases not involving violence, I think the extent of the harm - or potential harm - to children should determine the severity of the punishment and the need for incarceration.